A trial at Bath Magistrates’ Court was abandoned halfway through after the prosecution admitted the case was “fatally wounded”.
Travis Brooks, who had been arrested after colliding with a police car and a wall in Weston Farm Lane in Upper Weston on 20th September last year, had denied failing to provide a specimen of blood.
But after the court heard evidence given by two police officers at the trial on Wednesday 25th September, the Crown Prosecution Service asked the magistrates to dismiss the charge.
The court heard that police officers had been called to Weston Farm Lane after men were seen climbing on scaffolding.
Police spoke to Brooks, who was seen in a Fiat Scudo van in the lane, but he accelerated at speed and collided with a police vehicle and a wall.
Brooks, of Lower Court in Trowbridge, had stated that a friend had driven him to the lane and then gone to a caravan nearby; the van had been left in the middle of the road and Brooks said he had only driven it to move it.
Following the collision, the court heard that the 25-year-old scaffolder was arrested and handcuffed, but as he was complaining of dizziness and pain to his leg, police took him to the Royal United Hospital.
The first police constable told the court that Brooks’ driving that night had been “evasive” and “dangerous” and he suspected that Brooks might be intoxicated.
Under cross-examination, solicitor Ned Kemp asked the officer why he had not carried out an initial roadside breath test. “I don’t know why I didn’t,” the officer replied.
The officer admitted that Brooks had not smelt of alcohol.
The court heard that at the hospital the officer had filled out part of a form requesting a drink/drug-drive evidential blood sample even though he had not completed the relevant training under force policy.
The second police officer said he had been at the hospital at the time on another matter and was qualified to fill out the form, which the other officer had assisted him with.
Brooks had asked for an appropriate adult to be with him as he has autism. An appropriate adult safeguards the interests of a child or vulnerable person’s interests, including their rights, entitlements, and welfare.
The second officer admitted that after Brooks asked for an appropriate adult to be present, he had told him: “You don’t need one.”
The officer said it would have hindered getting evidence.
After a recess, the prosecutor Sue Cameron told the magistrates that she had spoken to the Crown Prosecution Service and it was acknowledged that the case was “fatally wounded”. The charge was dismissed.
Brooks then changed his plea for two other charges he was facing from not guilty to guilty.
He admitted driving without due care and attention and failing to stop the vehicle after being required to do so by a constable in uniform. He had already indicated guilty pleas to charges of having no insurance or driving licence.
Ms Cameron said that Brooks had “quite frankly, an appalling driving record” with three previous convictions already for driving whilst disqualified. Mr Kemp concurred.
Magistrates banned Brooks from driving for four years and six months. He was given nine penalty points, which with six already on his (provisional) licence, totted up past the 12, which triggers an automatic ban.
The ban was said to be “greatly aggravated due to previous driving record and nature of driving in this case”.
Brooks was fined £270 for careless driving and £108 for failing to stop. For the insurance offence he was fined £120. He was also ordered to pay £85 prosecution costs and a surcharge of £199.
Echoing the comments of both prosecution and defence, the chair of the bench Susannah Hanson told Brooks he had a “terrible driving record”.
She told him he could have killed someone by the way he had been driving that night. And she warned him that if he drove while disqualified again, there would be a very good chance that he would go to prison.
The surcharge explained
The victim surcharge, often referred to as just the surcharge, applies to any person sentenced.
The surcharge was introduced in 2007 as a flat rate for any person sentenced with a fine. It has since been expanded to apply to all sentences.
It is mandatory and applies to adults and children. It is used to fund services that support victims and does not go directly to the victims of a crime.
The amount depends on a range of factors, such as when the offence was committed, the type of sentence, and whether the offender is under 18.
